Comment history

Big government doesn't scare Democrats

Is there an echo in here?

October 17, 2007 at 11:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Big government doesn't scare Democrats

It amazes me how you can capture the crux of an argument with so few actual words.

October 17, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Big government doesn't scare Democrats

Brilliant post RT! It amazes me how you can capture the crux of an argument with so few actual words.

October 17, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Big government doesn't scare Democrats

"Tax and spend liberals"--I guess I don't understand what this means. Why is it that historically the largest increases in our national debt have been with republican presidents? The current record holder is Regan with his Reganomics and the infamous "trickle-down effect" where he lowered taxes by 30% and greatly increased government spending, especially defense with the ridiculous Space Defense Initiative. He was followed closely by GHW Bush. In fact the only administration that has had a budget surplus since 1948 was Clinton. He did it by raising taxes to the wealthy and the upper-middle class and he used his veto power many times to reject spending bills put forward by republicans in congress. When GW took over there were actually concerns about what to do with the OMB's projected national surplus. GW knew what to do--he spent it by lowering taxes (not a bad idea under the circumstances) but also by growing government to unprecedented levels.

Wait a minute, did I say GROW government? Isn't that what democrats do?

In any case, he turned the projected surplus it into a huge debt. His own administration has projected that it will be $11 trillion by the end of his term, though most economists project it to be closer to $13 trillion, since he does not like to include war spending.

We now have republican candidates that promise to preserve Bush's tax cuts and some even propose to lower them further. We currently face the real possibility of a recession. The weight of the huge debt greatly reduces this countries ability to react and rebound from these periodic financial crises. Where was Bush's veto when the republican congress passed these record-breaking spending bills? Now he is making a big deal over the relatively paltry sum for the SCHIP bill. While I agree that this bill is politically motivated, it seems more than a bit hypocritcal for him to politicize it as typical taxing and spending by democrats.

October 17, 2007 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Undue criticism

So does that mean that Bill O'Reilly's constant attacks on the ACLU are wrong? Is it actually a conservative organization, or perhaps a facist organization? Perhaps you should call and explain this to him.

Maybe he just hates classical liberals as opposed to modern liberals/facists? Okay, now I'm confused.

October 16, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Retail report pits shop vs. drop


Many of the stores you refer to demand a certain demographic that a town under 100,000 simply cannot support. City planners have little to do with attracting these businesses, developers and commercial realtors do. They typically do the demographic studies and find/create the sites for the location of these retailers.

Your comments touch upon another problem our city is facing. A town the size of Lawrence is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It is large enough that it needs to attract these main stream retailers for the tax dollars they bring and to compete with surrounding communities, but we are not yet big enough that they will locate here.

October 15, 2007 at 6:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Retail report pits shop vs. drop

I guarantee you Doug Brown knows exactley how much retail space there is available.

I don't think it is any secret that there is lots of empty office space in town and that most restaurants and bars are really hurting. The economy in town and nationwide is not doing well and this is where folks trim their budgets first.

OTTR, an article like that would be interesting if they also compared the vacancy rate with past years and other communities nearby, like Overland Park or Topeka.

But the likely answer would be that we are not doing so well even compared to these based on the latest census data. The question is why? Is it because our land is over priced, or gas prices are too high to justify the commute, or that our city just is not friendly to developement? I suggest it is all of the above. I don't think that people have generally decided that they no longer like our city. Lawrence is still a great community--an oasis in a vast cultural desert. But perhaps people can no longer afford such an intangible luxory.

October 15, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Retail report pits shop vs. drop

Merrill says:
"Thus far 25 years of expanding the tax base has consistently brought personal property tax increases of more than 4%:.. a sign that some development is not paying back."

Lawrence still has one of the lowest mill levies in the state. Property taxes increase because valuations increase, not rates. This means exactley the opposite. If you purchased real property in Lawrence 25 years ago, your investment has almost certainly paid off very well, all the while you have paid for the right to live in a great community.

Would you rather have a situation where you buy property and the value decreases, which causes the community to reduce services or increase tax rates? Look around the rest of Kansas and be happy with the way things are in Lawrence.

October 15, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In what setting do you experience the worst public etiquette?

The answer is obvious. At a pro football game. Especially when Monday night football is at Kansas City. I have never seen a larger collection of genetically disenfranchised morons in my life. I will never go back.

October 15, 2007 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Do you think Al Gore deserves to win a Nobel Prize?

I get sick and tired of hearing people repeat the Bush campaign rhetoric that Gore said he "invented the internet".

October 14, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )